mtm78

Iirc it was, if it weren't I would have noticed. Btw, yes that sound quality was such a good surprise after the horror of ingame voice com's in the old tank company days of WoT

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

I want to confirm I will be present on the 30th 21:00 CEST.

We all play for fun /me slaps piritskenyer with a large wet trout /me runs away

So you come and whine about something all of us gone through, the -2 bottom tier stock games, and when you get some actual advice which matches your level off QQing you dismiss it because it points out the problem might be a PEBKAC related issue? Again, EVERYONE posting here, EVERYONE you see in game, has gone through those matches. WG does not have a programmer who said, well everyone with the name v41n will get worse teams then the others, just because I think it's a strange name.. It's summer holiday, it's weekend, there is a special going on. Get used to seeing stupid, dumb and ignorant people, it's almost like in real life where those people also exist.

Seems you were not the only one.

My day yesterday was way worse then yours, stop being so salty ( alone.... get on TS tonight we'll try together to sealclub with greater success ).

Imagine when PT changes are being transfered to live server and suddenly Kuma also has protected matchmaking

Then definitely no, I like being a sneaky sob and stealth spam with Gremmy, and even my Sims if I can land those mortars, or my Fubuki for instance. I don't play Zao much, I should though, I kind of like the play style. You btw should realize that for Zao to stealth fire it first has to be in the right position, and the enemy team has to lack proper DD captains who can spot the Zao firing. It's not like every match in a Zao you can farm some Yamato's by default, but if you survive till the end of the game then yes you will spot the Yamato from ranges where you can fire without being detected. Not a chance, it's the fear of cruisers to get oneshot by Yamato's / Montana's, or at least to lose such a large chunk of HP so early in the match it limits their tactical abilities in late game. Also, 'aggressive push' of the enemy means they close the distance, which is exactly what Zao doesn't want you to do right?

@OP You want to remove stealth firing from CA/CL you mention in your opening post, why? Why would DD's be fine with stealth firing but CA/CL's not?

Zao is the best CA because of it's stealth firing capabilities with very good shell arcs and high fire chance, remove the stealth fire capability and buffing the rof will change the playstyle a lot but not make it stronger ( when facing battleships ). The addition of rof would make it better in dpm fights, but a BB which lands two citadels and some penetrations don't care about dpm. edit: I think..

Not sure, only if pre-agreed or custom battles or something, since I feel two CV's in team battles will mean this game will be an actual reenactment of the later stages of the pacific war where those two carriers will be the main force with the rest of the fleet acting as support. While this would be strategically interesting, I don't think many non cv players would find the idea incredible appealing. Then again, 1 cv in 7 players doesn't mean you couldn't do two cv's in 12 players? Maybe CV players who know their sh*t can correct me though

There is a thread dedicated to the MAC wrapper here -> http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/37729-public-test-of-mac-wrapper-for-warships/ It seems you're not alone, and the 'fix' for Windows doesn't work with the wrapper. Best thing would be contacting support as suggested in the thread, and also checking the thread for possible updates.

elastion you're 100% right, when I say immediate I should have added it is an immediate 24h ban after you exited XYZ times before the end of the battle. I never exit to port though, if one of my kids fall outside the house and I got to run out ( has happened ) I will either just park behind an island or just set autopilot straight to enemy base ( maybe I can spot something for team before I die ). It might be a 'false alarm' solved by a hug and a pat on the back, so I might be back in time before the battle is over. Exiting to port should imo be much stricter handled then going AFK during a battle. Also, I am pretty sure WG can check if someone crashes or exits to port manually ;)

Hey if I know I am about to die or will die, the least I can do is charge the enemy and try to ram the biggest ship I can take with me

quoted post removed Sadly this applies to more people than just OP... About time this 'exiting before battle is over' results in immediate 24h ban.

Yeah, I fully understand now, excellent argumentation.

quoted post removed aboch is right, and you just made a personal insult towards him, well done to proof his point.

2. Not true, only for top tier ships not middle or low tier ships in the battle. ( edit: this means top tiers of class, not game ) 3. Maybe they were not UP just hard to balance against AAA of ships from different tiers so limiting their spread makes it easier to balance them. All the other points ( which I think are all correct ) seem to indicate that CV divisions would be a terrible idea so yeah

I don't get this post, you're saying the arguments used by people in the thread are wrong? I can imagine me being wrong, I don't play them, but there are posts from people who do so i'm really confused

The damage taken in 'RANDOM BATTLE' ( not 'CASUAL BATTLE' ) can be removed imo because you're in with random players ( amongst which there are certain 'special type of players' ) and you got no control over who you're playing with, as long as those special people still get banned eventually for being [special kind of 'players']. Also, random battle isn't casual let's herp a derp around and screw the rest of your team battles ( which is what most people mean with 'casual' ). If you want that, go play PVE. Random battles is ...

Link to sound file is broken

Auto aim correction just influences trajectory, we're talking about rendering and server registered hits which only have an influence on each other in that the aim assist corrects elevation ( eg vertical dispersion in the ellipse ). I got no idea where you got the notion from that it has anything to do with replays or the issue at hand.

Sorry, you didn't explain you wanted to keep the penalties to the [certain 'players'] but only remove the damage taken by friendlies. Because without that mention, the idea is terrible With that addition though, it both punishes [certain 'players'] as well as not hurting allies when those [certain 'players'] are on their team being [certain 'players'].